Daniel J. Canon

Examines how plea bargaining—especially the practice of using “plea strikes” or pressures in negotiating guilty pleas—raises serious ethical questions about lawyers’ roles and responsibilities in the criminal justice system. Argues that lawyers (particularly prosecutors) can face ethical problems when they push defendants into plea deals or include terms that may violate professional conduct rules, and suggests that upholding ethical standards is essential to protect fairness and public trust in the legal process.

Shows how, during the Trump presidency, lawyers and activists tried to use the law to hold Trump and others responsible for speech they said incited violence or unlawful acts, but those efforts kept falling short in court. Explains that existing legal standards for incitement and strong First Amendment protections meant judges repeatedly rejected or dismissed these cases, underscoring how hard it is to win incitement lawsuits even when many people believe the speech contributed to harmful real-world events.

Looks at whether U.S. courts can and should step in to stop violence linked to elections—especially violence some say was fueled by Donald Trump—and why judges have been hesitant to hold powerful political figures accountable. Finds that courts have mostly stayed out of these fights not because of legal technicalities like free speech rules, but because of the personal views and attitudes of judges themselves, suggesting that what judges think matters more than the written law in stopping election-related violence.

Looks at whether and how lawyers should help people in prison organize together—such as through strikes or other group efforts—to push for better conditions, even though such activities are usually banned under prison rules. Finds that nonviolent collective action can be a powerful tool for change and argues that, under current ethical rules, lawyers can and sometimes should support and advise incarcerated clients in these efforts, while also explaining how to do so responsibly.

Argues that the way the U.S. justice system relies on plea bargaining — where most cases are settled quietly instead of being tried — doesn’t just speed up court business but creates and traps a huge group of people in a “criminal class,” especially affecting the poor and marginalized. Shows the ways in which this system pressures people to plead guilty, even when innocent, thus fueling inequality.